BCCI and ICC

This is the forum for discussion of all cricketing issues and news. Here you will find frank analysis and opinion on subjects ranging from selection policies, favourite cricketers and match post-mortems right through to dressing room and cricket board fiascos.
User avatar
squarecut
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 1972
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:06 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 3
India

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby squarecut » Sat Apr 29, 2017 7:48 am

BCCI has not announced its team while other countries have already announced their teams. How come ICC have not thrown them out of Champions trophy and including some other team instead ? There has to be some reason (non monetary of course) behind this. :)

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 27463
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby raja » Sat Apr 29, 2017 7:54 am

My long post was mainly to explain the Indian mindset right now.

Paddles is 100% right in terms of technicalities, esp with regard to ICC, its role, role of members and so on. He's speaking from a sport's point of view, a sporting body's point of view, comparing with other sports like football.

All of this is right - in a society that cares about the development and spread of the sport, beyond its own narrow interests.

India isn't such a society. Not since 1991.

It's (almost) only about India, India, India.

Call it a colonial backlash if you will, call it bullying if you will, call it by whatever name you like - but the fact is today's India wants to extract every pound of flesh it can from every deal it makes. Money has always talked - but never has it screamed as much as it screams in India today.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3261
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Sat Apr 29, 2017 7:59 am

raja wrote:Continuing from my previous post:

The views of GS/squarecut are fully representative of millions of Indian cricket fan, both in India and around the globe.

This is a viewpoint that has been developing over the last 25 years, coinciding with rapid commercialisation of cricket in India.
It's not something that's happened overnight.

To get a better sense of this, it might help to look beyond cricket.

Till 1990, India as a country was pretty laid back. The economy used to grow then at what used to be called a "Hindu rate of growth" (read up on this!).

By 1991, the economy was on the brink, with foreign exchange reserves precariously low (a cover of barely a few weeks!).

The IMF stepped in to bail India out, but with very stringent conditions. Key was that India HAD to institute reforms, which included opening up its economy.

With a gun to its head, India went for it - these are famously referred to in India as "the 1991 reforms".

And how!

India was always a sleeping giant. When a population of (then close to) a billion wakes up, it can create a noise louder than thunder.

That's what happened.

Suddenly, the rate of economic activity multiplied manifold, sectors opened up, we had private airlines, hundreds of private TV channels, private telecom companies (earlier we had only govt-owned airlines, govt-owned TV, govt-owned telecom).

Obviously with privatisation, multiple players in every industry - and competition - one of the industries to benefit the most was advertising. With hundreds more products and brands out there vying for people's attention, the advertising industry soared.

And cricket was one of the biggest beneficiaries of this economic surge.

Cricket (and films) had always been the opium for the Indian masses anyway. But cricket, even more than films.

Films in India have a constraint of language. Contrary to popular belief, Hindi is NOT spoken right across the country, though it is the most common language of communication. Bollywood films have to compete with regional films for popularity and theater space.

Cricket has no such constraint. Across the country, from Assam in the east to Gujarat in the west, from Kashmir in the north to Kanyakumari in the south, cricket has always been massively popular - and a major binding factor for a population, otherwise divided on several markers.

So when this economic surge happened (1991 onwards), advertisers flocked to flog customers' products using cricket as their vehicle.

BCCI, till then a corrupt, but fairly sleepy, body running the game in India woke up and realised the true milking potential of cricket in India. (Aside: Historically, even before independence in 1947, cricket in India was patronised by royalty - the likes of Maharaja of Patiala, or Holkar or Baroda. Even after independence, though erstwhile kingdoms were absorbed into the Indian state and the Maharajas lost much of their power, they would be the chief patrons of the sport. It was only in 1971, when PM Indira Gandhi abolished privy purses of royalty (on grounds of equality) that Maharajas began losing their influence - and politicians actively entered the fray).

Power shifted from Maharajas to politicians. And you can rest assured, at least in India (and probably worldwide), where there's a honey pot, there'll be politicians keen to get their hands on it.

With liberalisation of the economy in 1991, cricket - and therefore BCCI - got its biggest fillip ever.

Cricketers did too - Tendulkar was a popular cricketer even otherwise, he achieved superbrand status after liberalisation, endorsing a whole lot of product brands.

With private TV also coming in and each channel trying to outdo the other, TV rights became a prize to fight over. Who benefited most? BCCI.

It began making tons and tons of money. Unheard of in its history. Initially it didn't quite share enough of this with the players and in typical, "old BCCI" fashion, put conditions on players.

But these were players of a new generation - liberalised India. After a player revolt of sorts (I remember Kumble being part of this), the BCCI was smart enough to realise where its money was really coming from. The players. So it buckled down - and since then has been handsomely rewarding players. Annual contracts, they can continue product advertising (as long as it doesn't interfere with their cricketing commitments) and so on. Players happy, BCCI happy.

All this meant that Indian cricket was becoming SO flush with money that it was beginning to become ICC's biggest goose. Until then, ICC had been largely dominated by England and Australia.

Liberalisation-era Indians hated this. Now that the equation was changing, now that their Board was contributing so much to ICC revenues, they wanted power.

This is the history behind the current mindset of most Indians.

They accept their Board is corrupt - but they're nationalistic when it comes to defending their Board on an international forum. It becomes a matter of India vs The Rest.

As for "developing the game around the world", most Indians couldn't care less. They see it as "our money" being enjoyed by ICC to distribute to Boards, comprising officials just interested in freebies. Free travel and food in the name of "promoting the game".

A previous generation of Indians (pre 1990s) might have been more respecting of the ICC. Post-liberalisation India doesn't care about the ICC.

Every event that the ICC organises, BCCI could organise much better - that's the Indian view.

And to be fair, BCCI has organised, or hosted, events very well - starting with the Reliance World Cup 1987, the first World Cup hosted outside England. It was hosted jointly by India-Pakistan, and was a smashing success (even if neither team made it to the finals).

Again, BCCI (through Lalit Modi) organised IPL2 (2009) in a matter of weeks in South Africa, when the event had to be shifted there last-minute due to elections in India. Again, a fantastic job done in a very crash timeframe.

In contrast, the ICC World Cup in 2007 is widely regarded as a terribly organised event.

So all of this, makes Indians feel they can organise events better than the ICC.

Then come to the IPL.

It is a smashing success of an event, a BCCI event. Foreign players are keen to get picked in the auction and earn handsome money for just a few weeks of cricket.

Another proof held up by Indians that cricketing power is largely India-centric.

Financial demands by the BCCI are being made in this context.

Post 1991, India is a very commercially-oriented country. Charity isn't quite its thing.

It's about milking opportunities, making as much money as possible, getting the maximum share of a pie...arm-twisting if necessary.

If ICC represents other countries too, and tries to play hard ball with BCCI, it's possible BCCI will cut down on its "international" calendar.

There's talk already (in Indian circles) of two IPLs in a year. The revenue will be BCCI's - ICC will lose out.

Am not making a judgment call on what's fair and what's not.

Cricket itself is changing, T20 leagues are becoming more and more attractive for cricketers (though some, esp from England & Australia, might still say Tests are the ultimate).

If there are two IPL tournaments in a year, spectators will still lap them up, cricketers will benefit, the BCCI will benefit.

And ICC will be left out in the cold.

Does ICC need the BCCI, or does BCCI need the ICC?

Depends on what you want to see as cricket in the future.

If you still want a lot of international contests, yes, ICC has a big role to play (though BCCI could even do this, negotiating with boards).

If you are ok with limited international events, ICC's role gets even more limited.

Most Indians feel, whatever ICC does, BCCI could do better anyway.

So BCCI being treated as one among equals, is the last thing most Indians of today will accept.


Refreshing to see both your political market understanding, and history of liberalisation in India raja. So you would no doubt see the dichotomy between liberalised market economics and nationalisation of tv markets to keep rupees in India. If demanding the extra is just a powerplay, and that the BCCI just wants the remaining boards to know who the boss is, the ICC events do not influence the way that cricket is played out (billateral minimum tours are another matter altogether). But I just cannot help but feel that the BCCI is missing what Kerry Packer more than knew, you gotta keep the game strong globally for your own revenue earner to keep earning.

International cricket or IPL seems to be nigh on year round in India, a benefit of the weather climate in certain areas, but I question the actual willingness of the Indian Cricket fans to watch a year round IPL league, even poaching foreign stars on mega bucks. Even if it did so, some broadcaster in India is likely just to do a Kerry Packer cricket revolution in India, and buy an Indian team to play in the ICC anyway.

And that is the problem that the BCCI has if it cuts ties with the ICC. An Indian Billionaire is likely to swoop in.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3261
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Sat Apr 29, 2017 8:06 am

raja wrote:My long post was mainly to explain the Indian mindset right now.

Paddles is 100% right in terms of technicalities, esp with regard to ICC, its role, role of members and so on. He's speaking from a sport's point of view, a sporting body's point of view, comparing with other sports like football.

All of this is right - in a society that cares about the development and spread of the sport, beyond its own narrow interests.

India isn't such a society. Not since 1991.

It's (almost) only about India, India, India.

Call it a colonial backlash if you will, call it bullying if you will, call it by whatever name you like - but the fact is today's India wants to extract every pound of flesh it can from every deal it makes. Money has always talked - but never has it screamed as much as it screams in India today.


But its the contradiction between post 1991 market liberalisation in India and the effective or puported BCCI nationalisation of Indian cricket tv viewing audience that amuses me. I understand every Indian wanting what is good for India, thats fine. That is for the Indian government to determine. Everyone can agree that India post 1947 is an independent sovereign state. I can understand Indian resentment, if any, towards having once been the Jewel in the Crown. But the BCCI wants it both ways. A free liberalised market that brings dollars and pounds in, and a nationalised market that keeps its rupees in India. Now there's a third way solution Tony Blair would have been proud of!

The Indian fan already pays the BCCI for its IPL, its domestic games, and its Billateral tours against the likes of England, Australia, South Africa et al. The purpose of the ICC events is to promote international cricket globally. its in the charter. The BCCI does not want equal membership in the cricketing globe. The BCCI seeks additional reimbursement with the effect to keep rupees in India. This nullifies the point of equal membership and frustrates the very purpose of the ICC events.

The question is then begged why does the BCCI not just leave the ICC? Is it wanting to be treated differently, or is it looking to change the purpose of the ICC to one that does business that will profit the BCCI? if so, rewrite the charter of the ICC or have the BCCI make a new International Board that the national Boards can choose to be members of.
Last edited by Paddles on Sat Apr 29, 2017 8:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
squarecut
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 1972
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:06 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 3
India

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby squarecut » Sat Apr 29, 2017 8:24 am

Every other board as well as ICC want more money for themselves. They only want BCCI to get less money than before, all in the name of globalising the sport. why the other boards too should not take cut in their money to support this so called globalisation. Why it should solely be BCCI's responsibility to take a cut in revenue while others must get more than before ?

It is like ICC and other boards have ganged up to slay the golden goose (BCCI) and distribute the golden eggs among themselves in the proportion agreed upon by themselves. These Boards together will not get even 10 % of their agreed upon loot if the golden goose walks away.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3261
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Sat Apr 29, 2017 8:31 am

squarecut wrote:Every other board as well as ICC want more money for themselves.


Agreed, but England and Australia have agreed to less money. Their boards care more for global cricket than greater profit.

squarecut wrote:They only want BCCI to get less money than before, all in the name of globalising the sport.


They want Australia, England and India to get less money. Equal money. Every full member that sends a team gets the same.

squarecut wrote:why the other boards too should not take cut in their money to support this so called globalisation.


England and Australia have. To be fair Gideon Haigh questions whether England and Australia ever did want to take and create their surpluses (at the global international cricket cost) or whether they just found it easier to appease India. He used a tent analogy.

squarecut wrote:Why it should solely be BCCI's responsibility to take a cut in revenue while others must get more than before ?


England and Australia have as well.

squarecut wrote: It is like ICC and other boards have ganged up to slay the golden goose (BCCI) and distribute the golden eggs among themselves in the proportion agreed upon by themselves. These Boards together will not get even 10 % of their agreed upon loot if the golden goose walks away.


I think its more like the ICC sees the global market to take from and the distribute equally, and you see the India border in the globe and Indian rupees leaving to promote international cricket. The very purpose in the charter that the BCCI agreed to when it joined the ICC was to support international cricket. You do realise that once upon a time, your board benefited from ICC orchestrated Australian dollars and English pounds? Its not like the goal posts have changed of the ICC - they have remained the same. What has changed is that the Indian market has just become more wealthy with a much larger middle class than before. The broadcasters in India pay more for the broadcast at a rate set by market demand and supply, accordingly. There is no new ICC tax on the BCCI.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3261
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Sat Apr 29, 2017 8:41 am

The BCCI ought to just set up its own broadcasting service with a state enforced and sanctioned monopoly and get and keep every single rupee to be made out of the Indian tv viewer bar one paid to the ICC for the broadcast rights. And then share in the profits from Eng and Aus as cream on top.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
squarecut
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 1972
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:06 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 3
India

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby squarecut » Sat Apr 29, 2017 8:57 am

BCCI is set to meet on 7 may 2017 to decide on the matter of participation in CT. I hope they defer discussion on this matter to 20 june 2017. :)

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3261
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Sat Apr 29, 2017 9:27 am

squarecut wrote:BCCI is set to meet on 7 may 2017 to decide on the matter of participation in CT. I hope they defer discussion on this matter to 20 june 2017. :)


Not sure that would be too good for StarSports who have agreed to purchase the broadcast rights. Oh wait, it makes less difference to them than I was led to believe.

Maybe the ICC will take it easy on them and not hold Star to their contracts in full. But wait, Doordasha will show all India games off the Star feed.

The plot thickens.

Ironically, Doordasha is a public service broadcaster who will televise all India matches at ICC events for free, and has happened for the last 7 years?

So the BCCI is not concerned about the money spent by the Indian fan on Indian games which are available for free, at the cable cost of Star, the BCCI is concerned about the money spent on StarSports to watch the foreign games?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-cricket-world-cup-2015/content/story/828573.html

http://www.mid-day.com/articles/icc-world-cup-doordarshan-to-continue-telecasting-cricket-matches/15996194

raja please confirm if this is so? If so, I find it very amusing as the BCCI literally wants extra money for the Indian fan having access to watch non- Indian ICC games. How is this not like Kingfisher charging Budweiser or Heineken or Corona money to sell beer to an Indian beer drinker? Those are my beer drinkers! Actually, Kingfisher would have possibly lost the chance to sell a beer and would just not like competitive and free markets with imports, here, the product being bought is on top of what the BCCI operates as a team. Its more like Kingfisher asking for a share in all McDonald's burger sales because some may have been bought by drunk people? Drunk Indians in India are my people!

So the Public Service Broadcaster pays nothing for the ICC event broadcast feed from Starsports for Indian matches, the Indian fan pays nothing for the public service broadcast, and the fan who pays StarSports money for the rights to all matches in addition to those involving India, is the person the BCCI wants an extra cut from? The person who pays StarSports to watch matches in addition to those involving India?

The public in India get to watch their teams ICC matches for free and have done so for 7 years. Just imagine the market value of that broadcast that the Indian public are not paying for and otherwise would. Still a great way for the ICC to enable the promotion of cricket in India. Bar possibly Pakistan, all the remaining members are pay tv only.

http://www.totalsportek.com/cricket/icc-champions-trophy-tv-channels/
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3261
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Sat Apr 29, 2017 4:15 pm

Not only does the BCCI want more than 4 times the other full members, the BCCI wants the Associates to receive nothing.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/1095100.html

This is not only a challenge to the ICC charter of continuation of competitive international cricket. It spells a near death knell to the developing more cricketing nations.

The irony is that Indian matches are broadcast free in India on a public service provider, taken by Doodasha off StarSports - even using their cable feed. This makes the product less valuable to broadcasters like StarSports and StarSports who would pay more for an exclusive broadcast as it gains them the cricket fans that only want to follow Indian games. The revenue being sought is that which is generated by those in India that are paying StarSports to watch all the remaining ICC matches not involving India. This includes Associate's matches.

The ICC has offered India roughly 3 times that which full members receive but still with money set aside for the Associate nations. The BCCI have not accepted this offer.

As someone who regularly supports the underdog in sports, and has really enjoyed the rise of Bangladesh as a cricketing nation, Sri Lanka before them, I just cannot fathom why a fan of the sport from a non-business perspective (or nationalistic political economic perspective for that matter), would not want international cricket to grow and be developed into more nations. Associates mean less money for NZ, SA, SL, well everyone. But growing the game is worth it. And an Associate beating a full member, is a regular highlight for ICC events. While the T20 last year is remembered for Carlos Braithwaite smashing Ben Stokes, had that match fizzled out into an easy win for either nation without the drama, the highlight would have been Afghanistan beating the West Indies, and the two teams dancing with each other to Bravo's "Champion" song and dance while taking selfies with each after the game. And I say this as an NZC fan who's team was undefeated in pool play despite playing in a strong Asian pool in Asia as well as Australia. Sodhi beating Kohli was good, but Mohammad Shezhad dancing was even better.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 27463
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby raja » Sun Apr 30, 2017 6:05 am

This is a right-wing Indian website whose views represent the views of a large majority of Indian cricket fans right now.
----

https://swarajyamag.com/politics/sc-app ... d-revenues

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3261
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Sun Apr 30, 2017 7:12 am

Hilariously myopic solution of player poaching in a rival competition; how many years will that be sustainable for, especially South African players? Just ask Kerry Packer. Kerry Packer had to pay for West Indian cricket to get them for his WSC.

But a bit alarming that the author sees this as comparative to the UN security council for UN condemnation and military matters. The ICC was meant to be a charity ensuring continuance of sport, not control of military action done in the name of the UN.

But I don't think the BCCI not wishing to let foreign countries via the ICC to get associate and equal full member share of the price that the Indian market sets for foreign ICC games not involving India, to let those rupees leave India, promotes Indias chances of a UN position any time soon. Especially if done with the purpose of controlling World Cricket.

Be careful what you wish for. Cricket in 50 years could be as globally relevant as Kabaddi. Outside Asia, cricket is not a number 1 sport.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
squarecut
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 1972
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:06 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 3
India

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby squarecut » Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:00 am

Instead of BCCI's share of $ 587 millions reduced and $ 280 millions out of it given to associates, why cannot every member take a 20 % cut on what they are getting and give that to associates. Other boards want BCCI to forego $280 millions of their money, but they themselves would not forego even $ $ 26 millions each. Mind you, all this money is coming from Indian market and this money will not be there if Indians stop partonising cricket.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3261
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:21 am

squarecut wrote:Instead of BCCI's share of $ 587 millions reduced and $ 280 millions out of it given to associates, why cannot every member take a 20 % cut on what they are getting and give that to associates. Other boards want BCCI to forego $280 millions of their money, but they themselves would not forego even $ $ 26 millions each. Mind you, all this money is coming from Indian market and this money will not be there if Indians stop partonising cricket.


Because the remaining members are not getting $587m. They're getting a quarter of that. England and Australia have already forgone their big payout to get the figures to full members and associates are getting. EWCB and CA are being "charitable" or not asking for inequality of full membership and being a custodian of the game for associates and non-profitable full members. BCCI is doing things differently.

Mind you, the money at issue is for Indians watching non-Indian games of StarSports, the Indian ICC matches are shown for free on a public service broadcaster, and if this market nationalisation of the Indian tv cricket market continues, there won't be any non-indian matches left to watch bar England and Australia.

If the BCCI does not want Indian tv money to leave India, and the ICC fails to persuade the BCCI to act as an equal member or custodian of the game, the ICC should just give all the cricket free to India and stuff the BCCI. Heck if they did it through internet streaming, the ICC could sell advertising revenue themselves. Oh wait - the BCCI will claim that too - nationalization of internet streaming markets. That's the offer I'd make though. ICC free to air coverage in India of ICC events through streaming. Then the BCCI would have to explain to the Indian cricket fan why it needs disproportionate revenue streams when the Indian fan can watch all ICC games for free thanks to the ICC. The rest of the world should pay the BCCI for Indian tv fans watching ads while watching free content?
Last edited by Paddles on Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
squarecut
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 1972
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:06 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 3
India

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby squarecut » Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:29 am

ICC can do whatever they feel like by outvoting BCCI, as they have done. They may as well reduce BCCI's portion to below Zimbabwe and you will have the same arguments that you are giving now.

It is like a tiger has got injured and hyenas are attacking it in a gang. ICC is acting like East India Company that colonised and looted Indian for two centuries. This time , even the likes of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh have joined with the British and a traitor Indian in trying to colonise India, BCCI should simply walk out of this organisation called ICC. If it means to stop playing cricket, so be it.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3261
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:34 am

squarecut wrote:ICC can do whatever they feel like by outvoting BCCI, as they have done. They may as well reduce BCCI's portion to below Zimbabwe and you will have the same arguments that you are giving now.

It is like a tiger has got injured and other hyenas are attacking it in a gang.


No, its more like nationalism and protectionism of Indian tv markets by the BCCI wanting to benefit financially from imported tv shows made and starring overseas actors.

If the Indian government wants to do this, let them. I still say, have the ICC offer all cricket events in India for free, but it gets the advertising revenue. We can all pay in England, NZ, Australia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Ireland, West Indies, India can be special and get all the games for free. Then not a single rupee is leaving India. Heck make the advertising for Indian broadcasts non-Indian companies. Make sure no rupees at all leave India. But I bet you, the BCCI will still want the advertising revenue earned by Indians watching foreign matches on tv for free.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
squarecut
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 1972
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:06 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 3
India

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby squarecut » Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:47 am

ICC should kick BCCI out and find money from elsewhere for its Altruistic motives.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3261
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:53 am

squarecut wrote:ICC should kick BCCI out and find money from elsewhere for its Altruistic motives.


ICC is about growing and continuing cricketing member nations. Free to Air coverage for all ICC Cricket matches provided by the ICC in India for all of India is the answer.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3261
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Sun Apr 30, 2017 11:50 am

squarecut wrote:
It is like a tiger has got injured and hyenas are attacking it in a gang. ICC is acting like East India Company that colonised and looted Indian for two centuries. This time , even the likes of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh have joined with the British and a traitor Indian in trying to colonise India, BCCI should simply walk out of this organisation called ICC. If it means to stop playing cricket, so be it.


I like this post for many reasons. It reveals you don't see equality in full members as India is a tiger and the rest of the ICC are hyenas.

And it shows the desire to nationalise the existing free markets to stop foreign raiders profiting at a nations balance of trade cost, not that Socialism isn't a common political ideology, but it is the polar opposite to international capitalism where markets and business operate freely with consumers past borders.

Problem solved - give India the broadcasts for free and use foreign advertisers. Not a single rupee leaves India, the Indians get the games for free, the foreign advertisers pay the ICC revenue to be distributed equally to full members and to associates as seen fit. The total revenue will be less but more than enough to pay the lower sums.

The Indian cricket fan is better off. The ICC is better off.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 27463
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby raja » Sun Apr 30, 2017 2:07 pm

Here is the Indian Express view from the Editorial team.

"The BCCI has a choice to make: It can be the popular king of a growing game or the despised don of a dying sport."

http://indianexpress.com/article/opinio ... e-4632391/

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 27463
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby raja » Sun Apr 30, 2017 2:14 pm

Check out this Twitter thread to see how Indians feel about Ramachandra Guha's comments.
Ramachandra Guha is part of the newly-appointed Administration team of BCCI.
After the Supreme Court came down strongly on the previous BCCI management, it sacked the management and set up its own Committee of Administrators to run BCCI.

Ram Guha, a noted historian and a very well-known cricket fan, is part of this CoA.

Read his thoughts ; look at the responses from Indians.

https://twitter.com/Ram_Guha/status/858554763230793728

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3261
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Sun Apr 30, 2017 2:41 pm

Raja, are a large number of Indians market nationalists in political ideology of global markets or is this just a BCCI contradiction for the global free market supporters?

The indianexpress piece is well coined.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 27463
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby raja » Sun Apr 30, 2017 3:03 pm

Since liberalisation in 1991, India has become rabidly commercial in thinking.
Which in itself, is fine - and was much-required anyway.
Pre-1991, the socialist model in India only resulted in huge shortages of every resource - with all ills concomitant with such a situation.

BCCI just rode the wave.

It was BCCI's corruption that raised many eyebrows. N Srinivasan's conflict of interest, for example, was a big deal. (He owned an IPL team, CSK, AND was President of the BCCI).

Since 2014, India has added nationalism to its agenda.
This wasn't surprising at all, given that the right-wing Hindu-leaning party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), swept the general elections, knocking out the Congress-led UPA Alliance. The UPA was seen as a left-leaning party, with welfare programmes and such.

(It's another matter that the BJP today is relaunching the same UPA programmes that it vocally opposed when it was the opposition. The programmes might now be under a different name, but if anyone thought BJP wasn't going to pander to the masses with populist schemes, they thought wrong).

Anyway, nationalism today in India is HUGE. Never have I known it to be so rabid. The BJP is wildly popular at the moment, sweeping elections are various levels, with nationalism one of the biggest tools in its armoury. So much so that many equate BJP with the country. So if you criticize the BJP, you're often seen as being anti-national. :-)

Anyway, that's Indian politics at the moment.

Bottom line, many Indian cricket lovers today are both rabidly commercially-minded AND rabidly nationalistic.

You even see comments like "Even the previous BCCI management, though they were corrupt, were better than this. At least they didn't sell us to colonials".

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3261
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Sun Apr 30, 2017 3:35 pm

So its right wing free markets at home to bring money into the country but Socialism left wing nationalism on preventing or taxing imports that take money back out?

Right wing Nationalistic Socialism is back?
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 27463
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby raja » Sun Apr 30, 2017 5:16 pm

Paddles wrote:So its right wing free markets at home to bring money into the country but Socialism left wing nationalism on preventing or taxing imports that take money back out?

Right wing Nationalistic Socialism is back?


It's right wing nationalism which pushes for protectionism. Sort of India First.

It's not so much about taking money out of the country or taxing imports.

It's about power.

India is a rising power - and desperately wants to be recognised around the world as such.

It's already part of G20, but badly wants to be part of G8.

It badly wants a seat as Permanent Member of the UN Security Council.

It wants validation, it craves validation from the biggies, esp the US.

It doesn't really have too much to show however, except for "highest GDP growth rate in the world" , which is anyway an eminently fudgable number.

In sports, for a country its size, India is largely a disaster. Its Olympics results have improved of late, but are still woefully poor for a country of India's size.

Field hockey, a sport India used to dominate in, has also gone out of its grasp.

The ONE sport India can dominate in is cricket.

So all the nationalism is channeled into cricket.

Not just in terms of performance on the field, but sheer money power, BCCI is the big daddy of cricket.

A position Indians are just not used to - so they really cherish and enjoy this.

This explains their anger at the ICC decision and the 11-1 vote.

If you were generally a powerful person, you might handle your power with some maturity and grace.

But if you're generally weak, but just happen to be powerful in one particular area, there's a good chance you will let it get to your head and abuse that position of power.

That's my take on why Indians are so nationalistic about cricket.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3261
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Mon May 01, 2017 4:18 am

...
Last edited by Paddles on Mon May 01, 2017 5:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3261
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Mon May 01, 2017 5:05 am

raja wrote:
It's right wing nationalism which pushes for protectionism. Sort of India First.

It's not so much about taking money out of the country or taxing imports.i

It's about power.

India is a rising power - and desperately wants to be recognised around the world as such.

It's already part of G20, but badly wants to be part of G8.

It badly wants a seat as Permanent Member of the UN Security Council.

It wants validation, it craves validation from the biggies, esp the US.

It doesn't really have too much to show however, except for "highest GDP growth rate in the world" , which is anyway an eminently fudgable number.

In sports, for a country its size, India is largely a disaster. Its Olympics results have improved of late, but are still woefully poor for a country of India's size.

Field hockey, a sport India used to dominate in, has also gone out of its grasp.

The ONE sport India can dominate in is cricket.

So all the nationalism is channeled into cricket.

Not just in terms of performance on the field, but sheer money power, BCCI is the big daddy of cricket.

A position Indians are just not used to - so they really cherish and enjoy this.

This explains their anger at the ICC decision and the 11-1 vote.

If you were generally a powerful person, you might handle your power with some maturity and grace.

But if you're generally weak, but just happen to be powerful in one particular area, there's a good chance you will let it get to your head and abuse that position of power.

That's my take on why Indians are so nationalistic about cricket.


Social and political power of a national is largely a construct, but there are real and actual measurables though. India has nuclear weapons and a large army, it is militarily powerful. The Indian market economy is one of the largest in the world. The Indian government has power overseeing this market and this military. These are facts. But neither of there are the realm of the BCCI. And India's non admittance to the security council nor the G8 has anything to do with the ICC directly. I'm here to diuscuss cricket, not global politics; the rise of India is quite an interesting topic, but this is not the appropriate thread (or possibly forum).

The BCCI has massive leverage in negotiating billateral series, a tour by BCCI India is incredibly valuable to the host nation. The ICC has nothing to do with this, bar asking for members to complete minimum billateral tours, but playing weaker nations helps earn ranking points, and playing stronger nations gives ICC leaderboard credibility, so there is a non-financial incentive for India to play overseas, therefore, the weaker nations have a bit of leverage back - and the tours are a two way process. Although India has just played 13 tests in a row at home. NZ in exchange for 3 tests and 5 odi, gets a 5 odi and 3 t20 match tour in the future tours programme. That is the leveraging power the BCCI has - that is a real and actual power in bargaining deals. BCCI tours are worth more to any host, due to Indians following their team than anyone else. But this thread is not about billateral series, cos the ICC has never taken its funding from them. They are left to boards to negotiate the terms of which themselves. The ICC has no power here over the money and its distribution, nor does it seek it. This financial independence makes the ICC strong by way of being immune to BCCI billateral touring or non-touring.

But, where the ICC events are concerned, the BCCI is trying to manufacture power and clout that is not there to begin with. The Indian matches get the games for free on a public service broadcaster. The market value of these matches is $0.00 as set by the Indian Government. The Indian Government, in its sovereignty, for the good of its people, takes the games from StarSports cable feed and broadcasts them to the nation. If the ICC wants to prevent this, it would have to take the Indian Government to the WTO. Wheter it is benevolence or merely appeasing BCCI and Indian will, it chooses not to. The BCCI could try a civil suit at home as an interested party, but, ultimately, they're not the owner of the product, and the suit would likely fail to strike out before it got started.

But, a tonne of money is spent on the remaining ICC matches by StarSports, The BCCI claims that this ought to be distributed to them more favorably. But this is where it all breaks down conceptually for the BCCI in terms of power. The BCCI has no additional power over foreign boards, it does not own the ICC, it does not own the foreign boards, and it does not control the market in which the ICC operates. There is nothing to prevent the ICC broadcasting the matches in India itself for free to air, thus winning the hearts and minds of the Indian people who get all games for free. There is nothing the BCCI can do stop this, without the Indian Government stepping in, and alienating itself from the Indian public to receive free matches. There is no reason for the Indian Government to step in and stop the ICC doing this unless it wants to nationalise the tv industry, at which point, the ICC can sell advertising to broadcast on this medium to overseas corporations that wish to advertise in India. Not a single rupee need leave India.

The BCCI is powerless. They have no control over the Indian people and what they choose to watch and how much they pay for it or get it for free. They have no control over the Indian Government. And they have no ultimate control past the point of a full member vote and its own additional foreign board voting influence over the ICC (its appointments) and the ICC events. BCCI can choose to participate or not participate and this influence the value of the event and is trying to use this as power. The ICC can counter and give it for free to the Indian people because people are not property, nor are the Indian tv viewing public, this makes using them as commodities to be traded awfully difficult to successfully implement in a power struggle (if not to even try conceptually vulgar).

And due to the need for reciprocity in international sports, someone actually has to play someone else, and a volume of nations is needed for the event to have significance and relevance, when it comes to World Cups, no one country can rule FIFA, no one country can rule the IRB, and no one country can rule the ICC. What's next, India should get a batting line up of 22 players cos 70% of the viewers are to watch them bat (many of which on free to air public service broadcasting)?

International sporting bodies are not about power or the exercise thereof unless they kick a member out for a political reason (e.g South Africa and apartheidt). Power is typically for the politicians to collate and dispense in global matters. A sporting body is to enable and facilitate sports teams to play against each other, spread the sport and continue the playing against each other. Maybe the BCCI members who think the ICC is about power should go for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Indian Government, and try and get them a seat on the security council and advance India's journey to becoming a global superpower there. Because it won't ever be achieved, nor will validation, from holding the ICC to ransom.

Now I understand why from a non-fiscal perspective why more (even commercial) sporting organisations are facilitating cheap and free streams of their sports events available for mass consumption despite the possible risk of decreased return from subscription and regional television in the future. Its not just long term securing and enabling a global audience of fans affordably and spreading the games, who have their favorite teams within the sport itself. Its not just increasing more competition in media markets to gain more returns ultimately. The organizing body's objective to care more about the game and the tournament itself, than the personal interests of the (even businessmen) owners of individual teams, who could threaten to hold it to ransom with risk or result of a diminished product, all for an extra pound of flesh.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3261
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Thu May 04, 2017 3:24 am

Interestingly ESPN Star Sports is owned by 21 Century Fox. Which is effectively Rupert Murdoch. Star Sports has previously gained ICC broadcasting rights despite bidding at 100m US lower than Essel Group media in India.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 27463
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby raja » Thu May 04, 2017 11:16 am

Boria Majumdar in the Times of India

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.co ... world-cup/

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3261
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Thu May 04, 2017 1:35 pm

raja wrote:Boria Majumdar in the Times of India

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.co ... world-cup/

Which stance is getting majority support in India raja?

Both on playing as well accepting the lower tabled offer?
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
squarecut
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 1972
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:06 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 3
India

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby squarecut » Thu May 04, 2017 2:58 pm

Why is everyone forcing BCCI to announce a team. So they cannot generate revenue without BCCI team participation ? It appears to me that ICC in desperation is buying off people like Boria Majumdar to write inane articles.

User avatar
Going South
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 25427
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:10 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
United States of America

BCCI and ICC

Postby Going South » Thu May 04, 2017 3:43 pm

Prestitute is the right word

User avatar
squarecut
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 1972
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:06 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 3
India

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby squarecut » Thu May 04, 2017 4:45 pm

It is unfortunate that Supreme Court appointed CoA is trying to pressurise BCCI into participating in CT. I hope BCCI passes a resolution of invoking MPA and withdraws from ICC tournaments. In case CoA goes to Supreme court complaining against it, then what will Supreme court do ? Pass death sentence on BCCI officials ? Highly unlikely seeing that even proclaimed offenders are let free by them.

Presstitutes who are predicted dire consequences for BCCI will be proved wrong as usual.

Here is what will happen if BCCI pulls out:

1. Champions Trophy will make losses.
2. Cricket boards like Zimbabwe board and West Indies board will die out.
3. ICC will collapse because it will not be able to pay $132 millions each to the boards who voted against BCCI because such amount of money will not accrue to it.
4. Market force will ensure that BCCI and India cannot be isolated in cricket. On the other hand, BCCI can isolate ICC by forming a rival to ICC by paying cricket boards more money than what ICC was promising them.
5. IPL will not get foreign players ? You mean to say that only cricket boards are greedy and players are not ? IPL pays unheard of amount of money to often unknown players. Who will miss the chance to earn in one year in IPL what he may never be able to earn throughout his career in his domestic cricket ?

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3261
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Thu May 04, 2017 5:56 pm

squarecut wrote:It is unfortunate that Supreme Court appointed CoA is trying to pressurise BCCI into participating in CT. I hope BCCI passes a resolution of invoking MPA and withdraws from ICC tournaments. In case CoA goes to Supreme court complaining against it, then what will Supreme court do ? Pass death sentence on BCCI officials ? Highly unlikely seeing that even proclaimed offenders are let free by them.

Presstitutes who are predicted dire consequences for BCCI will be proved wrong as usual.

Here is what will happen if BCCI pulls out:

1. Champions Trophy will make losses.


That is unfortunate for the EWCB - who will have to refund a lot of ticket sales for the India Pakistan game. Whether its enough to make the event a loss isn't final yet. But the ICC will incur no loss at all. The EWCB may take a little hit. Nothing like the reduction the EWCB has agreed to in ICC funding already tho which is in the hundreds of millions.


squarecut wrote:2. Cricket boards like Zimbabwe board and West Indies board will die out.


Why? ICC will still get its funding. These more boards in danger than the WICB, tho. South Africa, NZ, SL for example.

squarecut wrote:3. ICC will collapse because it will not be able to pay $132 millions each to the boards who voted against BCCI because such amount of money will not accrue to it.
What you overlook here, is the Indian cricket fan still watch overseas cricket matches and will pay for it on StarSports. There will still be tv cricket sales in India, and the BCCI share may need not be paid. The BCCI has no value itself if it has no product to sell. You forget that the BCCI loves favourable boards to agree to tour India and play them on call.

squarecut wrote:4. Market force will ensure that BCCI and India cannot be isolated in cricket. On the other hand, BCCI can isolate ICC by forming a rival to ICC by paying cricket boards more money than what ICC was promising them.
I love this. They're greedy. We'll pay a rival more! Here's a problem for you tho, Australia and England have more than halved what they want already in funds, so you won't be able to buy them in a hurry. Operating costs will be higher with foreign oversight and domestic charity status could mean a much bigger tax bill overseas. What the threat has been is to buy the players, which is myopic, without an infrastructure, there will be no continued supply of international players.

squarecut wrote:5. IPL will not get foreign players ? You mean to say that only cricket boards are greedy and players are not ? IPL pays unheard of amount of money to often unknown players. Who will miss the chance to earn in one year in IPL what he may never be able to earn throughout his career in his domestic cricket ?


When has the IPL ever paid huge money for unheard of players? Mustafizur, Khan, Mills, were all global cricketing stars before the IPL signed them. They're not paying non-debutantes at domestic level huge money to play. Heck, the 3 I named were all internationals before joining the IPL. You think the IPL has scouts at club, grade and Lancashire league level in foreign countries to identify new talent?

Here's what happens in 2017 if India pulls out:

Star Sports still has to pay the ICC.

The BCCI will be resented by many Indian fans and be ripe for Essel to make a new move.
Last edited by Paddles on Thu May 04, 2017 6:38 pm, edited 7 times in total.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 27463
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby raja » Thu May 04, 2017 5:59 pm

Paddles wrote:
raja wrote:Boria Majumdar in the Times of India

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.co ... world-cup/

Which stance is getting majority support in India raja?

Both on playing as well accepting the lower tabled offer?


I'd say the "nationalistic" voice is the louder one.

The more common position is "why should BCCI compromise?"

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3261
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Thu May 04, 2017 6:24 pm

raja wrote:
Paddles wrote:Which stance is getting majority support in India raja?

Both on playing as well accepting the lower tabled offer?


I'd say the "nationalistic" voice is the louder one.

The more common position is "why should BCCI compromise?"


Shame. If the BCCI does pull out, I can foresee some of the same Indian cricket fans starting to resent the BCCI.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
squarecut
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 1972
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:06 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 3
India

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby squarecut » Fri May 05, 2017 12:49 am

If BCCI pulls out, that will be the end of ICC. BCCI can offer other boards more than what ICC can, And the so called administrative expenses of ICC too can be saved. So where is the question of anyone (apart from) ICC resenting it.

Star sports have signed up a $2 billion deal with ICC for 18 tournaments. Let us see how much ICC can earn without BCCI participation. may be $300 millions at the most. So how does it propose to pay all the hefty $132 millions each to the likes of New Zealand and Sri Lanka ? Let Manohar pay them from his pocket the way he was offering to pay an additional $ 100 millions to BCCI.

And do not worry about BCCI. BCCI will play all its cricket. It is ICC that will cease to exist.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3261
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Fri May 05, 2017 3:41 am

squarecut wrote:If BCCI pulls out, that will be the end of ICC.


No. Indians in India will still watch cricket. Its not like Indians are any good at football or rugby. Cricket is the number 1 sport in India and Indians love it. If Afghanistan play Zimbabwe, there's many people in India who will watch the game.

squarecut wrote: BCCI can offer other boards more than what ICC can,
It can. But it is unable to offer international comity at present. Money is great, and necessary, but as the BCCI is slowly learning, international sports governship is a community. All boards will be wary of the BCCI promising more money, when it is in a fight with the ICC over money. If its a matter of the foreign boards handing over control of international cricket from a full member democracy, to BCCI control, they're going to be very slow to do this, no matter how much money is offered. Remember, the BCCI revenue is still limited to what Essel and Fox pay for its product. Without India playing anyone, there is no product to sell. India has already got total control over its billateral agreements, and is treated as special by the ICC. But now you're suggesting the BCCI control world cricket, when its being voted 13-1 against? I'm not sure the foregin boards are quite prepared to hand over their autonomy to the BCCI just yet. Its not like they're shareholders who individually profit from selling the Board. So where is the incentive?

squarecut wrote: And the so called administrative expenses of ICC too can be saved. So where is the question of anyone (apart from) ICC resenting it.
Heh, the ICC is a tax haven of Dubai, and the current members boards are charities. If anything, the BCCI will have increased administrative expenses if it takes over foreign boards.

squarecut wrote:Star sports have signed up a $2 billion deal with ICC for 18 tournaments. Let us see how much ICC can earn without BCCI participation.


$2 billion.

squarecut wrote: may be $300 millions at the most.
No - its $2billion if what you say is correct. Unless the contracts specified India play, which would be a strange clause in the contracts for events where teams have to qualify. The Indian matches were likely to be shown on public service broadcast in India anyway, its not like Fox is losing its monopoly on Indian games should they not be played. Fox will be worried about its potential losses to the ICC if India does not participate.

squarecut wrote: So how does it propose to pay all the hefty $132 millions each to the likes of New Zealand and Sri Lanka ? Let Manohar pay them from his pocket the way he was offering to pay an additional $ 100 millions to BCCI.

And do not worry about BCCI. BCCI will play all its cricket. It is ICC that will cease to exist.



You want Indian global control of a sport for the sake of it. What can the BCCI do better than the ICC? The ICC wants to look after all full members and associates, the BCCI wants to look after itself and damn the torpedoes. Why on earth would the foreign boards want the BCCI as its boss?

Why does the BCCI want autocratic control of an international democratic board? To kill off associates and full members? Why? To turn more pitches globally into spin fests and to eliminate swing and seam bowling? Why the need for Indian dominance? Australia and England did pretty well creating a global game which Indians enjoy, why downsize it?

I think its time cricket got into the Olympics and China was brought into the sport.

But seriously, suggestions that the BCCI will buy foreign boards are ridiculous when the BCCI isn't even prepared to let them have existing ICC funding. Its a hollow threat. Either the BCCI doesn't have the money required to do it, or just is not prepared to spend that kind of money.

But the most ridiculous notion, is that because most cricket watchers in the world are in India, only Indian and not the world should not benefit from this. If you don't want the cricket world to profit from India, don't watch their games. But if you demand and consume the product, be prepared to pay for it. You don't get to give money to Vivo only if you want to buy a Samsung Galaxy or an Apple iPhone.
Last edited by Paddles on Fri May 05, 2017 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

Misty
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3893
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 7:13 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
Zimbabwe

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Misty » Fri May 05, 2017 4:59 am

SRT AND DRAVID forced BCCI to announce team immediately today before midnight for Champion trophy
Debutant Reggie Duff was the first centurian bats at number 10 in test,his last test at Oval he hits 146 in 1905

User avatar
squarecut
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 1972
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:06 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 3
India

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby squarecut » Fri May 05, 2017 6:25 am

Why cannot ICC expel BCCI from Champions trophy and replace them with any worthy team ? Why are they so keen to have BCCI in the tournament at all cost, but would still insist on ganging up against them and humiliating them.

I have had enough of ICC. Let them go and spread cricket all over the world but without Indian money. Let them use the money of teams that voted against BCCI.

All your posts in this threads are only about how it is BCCI's responsibility to spread cricket in the world while other boards should live off the money that ICC robs from BCCI to pay them.

User avatar
squarecut
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 1972
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:06 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 3
India

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby squarecut » Fri May 05, 2017 7:57 am

Here is an article that tells us what the other so called bleeding heart altruistic cricket boards are up to:-
http://www.firstpost.com/sports/ct-2017-bcci-justified-in-standing-its-ground-against-icc-gang-which-brings-in-paltry-revenue-3425248.html

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3261
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Fri May 05, 2017 12:25 pm

squarecut wrote:Why cannot ICC expel BCCI from Champions trophy and replace them with any worthy team ?


Why would the ICC want to expel India or any of its full members? India doesn't have apartheid and ICC is about bringing international cricket together and spreading the international game.

squarecut wrote:Why are they so keen to have BCCI in the tournament at all cost, but would still insist on ganging up against them and humiliating them.
Well the ICC is not yet so keen to have BCCI in the tournament at any cost or it would give in to the BCCI demands and threats. As for ganging up and humiliating, you'll need to explain further what you mean.

squarecut wrote:I have had enough of ICC. Let them go and spread cricket all over the world but without Indian money. Let them use the money of teams that voted against BCCI.
Still $2billion more Indian money comming till 2023 under Fox contract. If the ICC does not have to supply India a lion's share of this revenue, it looks like it has a bit of money and time to resolve this.

squarecut wrote:All your posts in this threads are only about how it is BCCI's responsibility to spread cricket in the world while other boards should live off the money that ICC robs from BCCI to pay them.


Noone touches BCCI money. Fox buys broadcasting rights off the ICC for the non-Indian games with the Indian games on public service broadcaster, taken off the FOx cable for free by the government. It is as though you think Indians should get all broadcasts of all matches for free.

Why should the cricket world let BCCI control world cricket? How will the world be better off? How will even the Indian cricket fan be better off?
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

Misty
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3893
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 7:13 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
Zimbabwe

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Misty » Sat May 06, 2017 12:54 pm

BCCI SETS TO DECIDES IN 24 HOURS ONLY

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/conte ... 96452.html
Last edited by Misty on Sat May 06, 2017 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Debutant Reggie Duff was the first centurian bats at number 10 in test,his last test at Oval he hits 146 in 1905

Misty
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3893
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 7:13 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
Zimbabwe

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Misty » Sat May 06, 2017 1:07 pm

India or WI in CT 2017?
Debutant Reggie Duff was the first centurian bats at number 10 in test,his last test at Oval he hits 146 in 1905

Misty
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3893
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 7:13 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0
Zimbabwe

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Misty » Sat May 06, 2017 1:32 pm

squarecut wrote:BCCI has not announced its team while other countries have already announced their teams. How come ICC have not thrown them out of Champions trophy and including some other team instead ? There has to be some reason (non monetary of course) behind this. :)


Because of BCCI, ICC got 59.89% net profits from Global cricket world,ICC do not wants them to loose but not to pay them same as last time.BCCI wants more than ENgland and Australia, Anyway only 24 hours left to desides who will go to UK ? Meeting tomorrow Sunday.

India or Westindies? ICC's ODI ranking,WI stands at number 9 so if India pull out,WI will go.Good Luck.WI

Over the year, England,india and Australia were only country who gets Funds from ICC but others not get penny at all so ICC wants Equal to everyone all 9 country, I wish India makes way for WI.
Debutant Reggie Duff was the first centurian bats at number 10 in test,his last test at Oval he hits 146 in 1905

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3261
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Sun May 07, 2017 2:48 am

http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-champions-trophy-2017/content/story/1096168.html
If the BCCI does revoke the MPA, then India will not be able to play any ICC tournaments until 2023, when the cycle of rights held by Star end.

Imagine a bunch of reasonably paid teachers, angry that their school has not increased their wages by a certain percentage. They are not willing to negotiate with the school board. Instead, they kidnap their class.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
raja
Muppet Administrator
Muppet Administrator
Posts: 27463
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 6:14 pm
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 0
Pakistan

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby raja » Sun May 07, 2017 7:25 am

BCCI will play in the CT.
Don't know the details yet.

Have a feeling this isn't the end of it though.

User avatar
squarecut
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 1972
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:06 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 3
India

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby squarecut » Sun May 07, 2017 9:09 am

Indeed this is not the end of it. starsports, the broadcaster, seems to have bought off some people including CoA administrators who were forcing BCCI to participate.

Additionally, starsports may have compensated BCCI by paying off the balance amount that ICC had taken off from them. I had shown in my calculation in my blog on this topic that BCCI participation would enable starsports to earn in excess of $ 900 millions in this tournament from Indian market alone. It makes good business sense for starsports to pay a few $ millions to some people to swing the decision in favour of BCCI participation.

At present BCCI is handcuffed and shackled by its own people (Supreme Court). ICC and other boards have taken full advantage of this situation. Let Supreme court get off the back of BCCI. Then we will see what BCCI does to ICC and other boards. I would love to be in the BCCI team to take on the other boards. I have some "great" ideas about how to show the ungrateful ICC and other boards their places.

User avatar
Paddles
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 3261
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:31 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked
Reputation: 0

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby Paddles » Sun May 07, 2017 9:57 am

squarecut wrote:Indeed this is not the end of it. starsports, the broadcaster, seems to have bought off some people including CoA administrators who were forcing BCCI to participate.

Additionally, starsports may have compensated BCCI by paying off the balance amount that ICC had taken off from them. I had shown in my calculation in my blog on this topic that BCCI participation would enable starsports to earn in excess of $ 900 millions in this tournament from Indian market alone. It makes good business sense for starsports to pay a few $ millions to some people to swing the decision in favour of BCCI participation.

At present BCCI is handcuffed and shackled by its own people (Supreme Court). ICC and other boards have taken full advantage of this situation. Let Supreme court get off the back of BCCI. Then we will see what BCCI does to ICC and other boards. I would love to be in the BCCI team to take on the other boards. I have some "great" ideas about how to show the ungrateful ICC and other boards their places.


The Supreme Court is BCCI's own people? What on earth do you mean? You suggesting this is an Indian vs the rest of the world thing? It is an conflict of reasoning, not of race.

By the way, repeating what I posted earlier, the broadcaster in India is Fox, a US company, largely owned and run by an Australian, Rupert Murdoch. Formerly known as News Corp. I suggest you re-read this thread and my posts about broadcasting, and really take resonance that Star Sports is owned by Fox. Perhaps look into the professionalism of rugby union, the Super League war in rugby league and Fox's involvement. Further, I wouldn't stoop to allegations that the CoA was bought by Star Sport either. That is defamatory.

The BCCI does not own the tv market in India, and it never will. One day Fox and Essel or someone else will go to war again or at least look into it as an option. Most likely 2023 after the WC.

As for your CoA are the cronies of Fox allegation, the CoA was appointed by the Indian Supreme Court, and Fox recently lost in court trying to prevent the Government owned public service broadcaster from using its cable to broadcast the Indian games at CT for free.
If any moderator or administrator is able to add Going South to my foe list, I would greatly appreciate it.

User avatar
squarecut
CF Senior
CF Senior
Posts: 1972
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:06 am
Cash on hand: Locked
Reputation: 3
India

Re: BCCI and ICC

Postby squarecut » Sun May 07, 2017 12:33 pm

BCCI and Supreme Court judges are not Indians ?

And Fox sports owns Indian TV audiences. I did not know that.